Tournoir v. Tournoir

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that plaintiffs had not met two-part test where they had “not averred or offered any evidence about [their] current risk of exposure or about the degree to which the [agency action] would decrease that risk”
• noting that delays in finalizing rules could be “attributed to a change in administration and a shift in policy priorities”
• noting that the Department “would need almost seven decades to offset the costs of the V2V rule” at the present rate of cost cutting
• rejecting associational standing where plaintiffs “made no effort—either in their complaint or in the multiple declarations they have submitted—to identify a specific member who has suffered, or who is likely to suffer, an injury in fact”
• “The Court may take judicial notice of Executive Branch statements and reports . . . .” (citation omitted)
• “[P]laintiff-association [must] identify at least one specific member who has suffered, or is likely to suffer, an injury in fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).